Transitional / intermediate

[hughfarey]

But occasionally science Does go out on a limb ...

Do you think so? I think science plods along very slowly and securely, and tries not to get involved. It's not science climbing across to religion's garden, it's the other way round - biblical fundamentalism going out on a limb, trying to attract science's attention in the hope of ratification.

Lots of people fight tooth and nail to discredit God's Word -- it's reliability -- Anything to get 'it' out of the picture.

I think it's the other way round. Lots of people fight tooth and nail to establish some kind of credibility for their own particular interpretation of the bible, claiming that their own particular interpretation is God's Word, and that any other interpretation is wrong. Any disagreement with their interpretation is classed as 'discrediting God's Word', when it is nothing of the sort. Nobody fights to discredit God's Word itself.

[Audie]

But occasionally science Does go out on a limb ...

Do you think so? I think science plods along very slowly and securely, and tries not to get involved. It's not science climbing across to religion's garden, it's the other way round - biblical fundamentalism going out on a limb, trying to attract science's attention in the hope of ratification.

Lots of people fight tooth and nail to discredit God's Word -- it's reliability -- Anything to get 'it' out of the picture.

I think it's the other way round. Lots of people fight tooth and nail to establish some kind of credibility for their own particular interpretation of the bible, claiming that their own particular interpretation is God's Word, and that any other interpretation is wrong. Any disagreement with their interpretation is classed as 'discrediting God's Word', when it is nothing of the sort. Nobody fights to discredit God's Word itself.

I see that "discredit God's Word...get it out" thing pretty often. Usually along with something about how that way one has license to misbehave without consequences.

Who can say what someone might do. So maybe someone does that.
It is not productive to discuss hypothetical persons and what they might do if they exist.

It would not occur to me to behave so or to be moved by such base and ignoble motives. And it would be, frankly, insane to do so. Assuming such behaviour to be widespread or characteristic of atheists / scientists is just wrong. On several levels.

Now personally, I dont think anything is "God's Word". For those who do, though, there appears to be a free-for-all, with individuals empowered with the gift of right-readin' conveyed to them by God himself.

No need to list even a tiny fraction of the divers outlandish and betimes horrendous interpretations that have been dreamed up and inflicted on the innocent.

Then there are the more or less harmless but goofy ideas like the much-noted "gap theory" or
"world wide flood". Those serve to make the faith look silly; likewise Joseph Smith's wildly implausible story about gold books inscribed with the book of mormon, or any number of other goofy versions of what God's word is all about.

Harmless, more or less. Nobody gets tortured or drinks grape kool aid over gapistry. Or BoM.
Not even over splash splash vs total immersion.

If there is spiritual development to be considered though, going down blind alleys and
making false claims about a God one nominally worships seems ill advised.

Insistance that one has infallible access to arcane knowledge concerning the mind of God in the face of clear demonstration of the folly, refusal to even remotely consider that one could be in error no matter what, well, that is the very antithesis of intellectual integrity. To make rejection of integrity an essential spiritual value is just perverse.

Personally, I think integrity is a value to guard and nourish.

Ignorant silliness and abandonment of integrity harm the individual, the religion and the society.

I think I am a far better friend to the faith than are those who bring discredit to it with unsupportable beliefs about God's word.

[crochet1949]

God's Word does NOT give license to misbehave with no negative consequence -- God's Word talks about using a switch to correct our children. In other wards Spanking. Not 'beating'. Negative consequences are observed in Society all the time.
And, unfortunately, there Are 'Christian' people who Do behave badly. But that's not exhibiting True Christianity, either.

There Are plenty of real people who do the 'bad stuff' and either die because of it or end up arrested and in jail or prison. It's on the news every day.

And I, too, wouldn't dream of doing what some people do without even giving two thoughts about it. People can act deplorably to other people. And get away with it. But everyone Also has a conscience to deal with. A guilty conscience is Not visible to others. It's something that people live with until they are willing to do something about it.

And no one has purposely suggested that those kinds of activities are privy to atheists only. On the Other hand, a thought process is that a person who does Not believe in 'God' / the reality of a future hell / Might be more inclined to do the evil simply because they don't acknowledge a higher power that has authority over them. And that 'this' life is all there is and don't see a need to 'believe' in anything else. And there Are those who Do feel free to 'do whatever to whomever' simply because they are their own 'authority' -- they live life in the moment and if they land in jail or prison -- they live with that and they really Don't care. Maybe that's a sociopath. I don't know. AND there are those who Do live a pretty good life -- because that's how they are 'programmed'. They do the best they can and expect others to do the same.

And there are those who have 'science' in the place Of 'God'. They don't realize it because they've never had much religious beliefs in their lives. And they are very intelligent people who immerse themselves in the sciences. They don't feel / see a need For a religious aspect in life.

Speaking for myself and most of the people I've been around for the past 60 some years -- God's Word is Very real and important. A person Might want to look around and observe all the churches in most every town, city in This country, at least. They are reading God's Word / a religious piece of literature of some kind / praying to a deity / worshipping a 'God' of some kind. And just recently -- have celebrated Christmas in some way. Lots of churches with Candle-light services. Practice various holiday traditions -- because it's the celebration of Jesus Christ -- God's Son. And at some point we will Also be celebrating Easter / Resurrection Sunday. Because That is in remembrance of Jesus Christ's death on the cross, His burial and More important -- His bodily resurrection From the dead. That's usually at the end of March.

These events are an indication of the existence of God.

Well -- God's Word IS special. It IS living and powerful -- and as people Do take time to read it in a serious manner -- the Holy Spirit Does give 'special insight' on a personal level. Yes, God Does 'speak' through His Word.

The 'problem' arises when those who Don't have any particular care about God's Word DO make comments about the outlandish beliefs of others. The Problem is that those who Do hold God's Word with respect are 'made fun of' -- that Their belief in God is -- well-- less than productive. And just Maybe THEIR belief is what needs 'readjusting' -- that the direction They are going is 'ill-advised' and in Error.

Intellectual integrity -- Drop one's belief in God in favor of What......... Ignorant silliness -- abandonment of integrity Harm the individual -- the religion and society. ... unsupportable belief about God's Word. The Ten Commandment came From the Bible -- they Are part Of God's Word. And they have been replaced in the New Testament with 'love the Lord thy God with your heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. Because Most of us take pretty good care of Ourselves -- so extend That to 'our neighbor."

[Audie]

God's Word does NOT give license to misbehave with no negative consequence -- God's Word talks about using a switch to correct our children. In other wards Spanking. Not 'beating'. Negative consequences are observed in Society all the time.
And, unfortunately, there Are 'Christian' people who Do behave badly. But that's not exhibiting True Christianity, either.

There Are plenty of real people who do the 'bad stuff' and either die because of it or end up arrested and in jail or prison. It's on the news every day.

And I, too, wouldn't dream of doing what some people do without even giving two thoughts about it. People can act deplorably to other people. And get away with it. But everyone Also has a conscience to deal with. A guilty conscience is Not visible to others. It's something that people live with until they are willing to do something about it.

And no one has purposely suggested that those kinds of activities are privy to atheists only. On the Other hand, a thought process is that a person who does Not believe in 'God' / the reality of a future hell / Might be more inclined to do the evil simply because they don't acknowledge a higher power that has authority over them. And that 'this' life is all there is and don't see a need to 'believe' in anything else. And there Are those who Do feel free to 'do whatever to whomever' simply because they are their own 'authority' -- they live life in the moment and if they land in jail or prison -- they live with that and they really Don't care. Maybe that's a sociopath. I don't know. AND there are those who Do live a pretty good life -- because that's how they are 'programmed'. They do the best they can and expect others to do the same.

And there are those who have 'science' in the place Of 'God'. They don't realize it because they've never had much religious beliefs in their lives. And they are very intelligent people who immerse themselves in the sciences. They don't feel / see a need For a religious aspect in life.

Speaking for myself and most of the people I've been around for the past 60 some years -- God's Word is Very real and important. A person Might want to look around and observe all the churches in most every town, city in This country, at least. They are reading God's Word / a religious piece of literature of some kind / praying to a deity / worshipping a 'God' of some kind. And just recently -- have celebrated Christmas in some way. Lots of churches with Candle-light services. Practice various holiday traditions -- because it's the celebration of Jesus Christ -- God's Son. And at some point we will Also be celebrating Easter / Resurrection Sunday. Because That is in remembrance of Jesus Christ's death on the cross, His burial and More important -- His bodily resurrection From the dead. That's usually at the end of March.

These events are an indication of the existence of God.

Well -- God's Word IS special. It IS living and powerful -- and as people Do take time to read it in a serious manner -- the Holy Spirit Does give 'special insight' on a personal level. Yes, God Does 'speak' through His Word.

The 'problem' arises when those who Don't have any particular care about God's Word DO make comments about the outlandish beliefs of others. The Problem is that those who Do hold God's Word with respect are 'made fun of' -- that Their belief in God is -- well-- less than productive. And just Maybe THEIR belief is what needs 'readjusting' -- that the direction They are going is 'ill-advised' and in Error.

Intellectual integrity -- Drop one's belief in God in favor of What......... Ignorant silliness -- abandonment of integrity Harm the individual -- the religion and society. ... unsupportable belief about God's Word. The Ten Commandment came From the Bible -- they Are part Of God's Word. And they have been replaced in the New Testament with 'love the Lord thy God with your heart, soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. Because Most of us take pretty good care of Ourselves -- so extend That to 'our neighbor."

I suppose the above is in response to what I said?

License to misbehave-sometimes Christians do claim that God authorizes their behaviour. The Inquisition and black slavery are two gross examples.

But I was talking about how atheists are widely misinterpreted as rejecting God as a way to
evade responsibility for themselves. A strange idea!

You spoke of fighting to get God's word out of the picture, but did not say why you think anyone would do that. Why do you think anyone would do that? What is to be won for such a struggle to be worth it?

The integrity that I spoke of has zero-nothing-0- to do with belief in God. Nothing whatever to do
with dropping belief in God. You totally misunderstand me.

Belief that the Book of Mormon is legit is the practice of some Christians. So was belief that
burning witches at the stake after days of torture was legit and godly. So is "gap". Or world wide flood.

There is no intellectual integrity possible in such things.

Not a lot of respect for God expressed in pulling someone's legs off in the name og God.
Or pretending He really-really left gold books in upstate New York, telling of Jesus' adventures in
Illinois.

Recovery from such wrongheadedness is not dropping belief in God.

IF I believed in the Christian God I still would say there is no excuse for believing the BoM
or Noahs ark as actual history.

Cognitive dissonance can be a good thing when it leads to a better understanding

Here is proof there was no flood..............over here is belief that one is gifted with infallible bibke reading that says the opposite.

Cant have both. Which seems to be a shakey assumption?

[abelcainsbrother]

The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.

Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.



The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.

[Audie]

The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.

Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.



The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.

Abe, you keep chanting your mantra about "no evidence" despite the fact that there is more evidence than you could read in a lifetime.

Of course there is no evidence, to you. What little you read, you dont understand. Your salamander thing you keep citing, your take-away isnt at all what the article is about. You have very little grasp of geology or biology, and you invent your own standards for what is evidence, which are impossible to meet.

For example:
When evidence goes against you, then you go into high gear, making things up.
Darting about for an escape like a mouse in a cobra cage.

Escape attempt number 1:
"The ice floated, stayed intact, settled back exactly in place" ;


Escape attempt numberv2
"The ice did not float, it is stuck down"

Escape attempt number 3
"The top half of the ice floated, did not break up or melt, settled back exactly in place".

You made up each of those. Your "evidence"? An ice cube frozen to a bowl!
Even you know how dumb that is.

Got any more escape attempts you want to try?

Double standard? Hardly. You've no standard at all.

Now, you speak of "God's word", "what God says is true".

I notice you ignore uncomfortable questions and just chant your same mantra.

Lets see if you can be honest and answer this time.

So tell me-
Is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of god?

I could be wrong, I dont claim to have arcane insight.

Is it possible that there was no world wide flood?

The evidence shows there was not. Only an assumed insight into the true meaning of
"God's word" says otherwise. No data, nothing but that assumption.
The numbers are against "God's word" as you choose to interpret it.

Is it possible that "God's word" is true, but like the atheists you say ard in darkness, you dont have a clue what "God"is actually saying?

[abelcainsbrother]

The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.

Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.



The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.

Abe, you keep chanting your mantra about "no evidence" despite the fact that there is more evidence than you could read in a lifetime.

Of course there is no evidence, to you. What little you read, you dont understand. Your salamander thing you keep citing, your take-away isnt at all what the article is about. You have very little grasp of geology or biology, and you invent your own standards for what is evidence, which are impossible to meet.

For example:
When evidence goes against you, then you go into high gear, making things up.
Darting about for an escape like a mouse in a cobra cage.

Escape attempt number 1:
"The ice floated, stayed intact, settled back exactly in place" ;


Escape attempt numberv2
"The ice did not float, it is stuck down"

Escape attempt number 3
"The top half of the ice floated, did not break up or melt, settled back exactly in place".

You made up each of those. Your "evidence"? An ice cube frozen to a bowl!
Even you know how dumb that is.

Got any more escape attempts you want to try?

Double standard? Hardly. You've no standard at all.

Now, you speak of "God's word", "what God says is true".

I notice you ignore uncomfortable questions and just chant your same mantra.

Lets see if you can be honest and answer this time.

So tell me-
Is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of god?

I could be wrong, I dont claim to have arcane insight.

Is it possible that there was no world wide flood?

The evidence shows there was not. Only an assumed insight into the true meaning of
"God's word" says otherwise. No data, nothing but that assumption.
The numbers are against "God's word" as you choose to interpret it.

Is it possible that "God's word" is true, but like the atheists you say ard in darkness, you dont have a clue what "God"is actually saying?

Yes there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and I'm right,there is only a bunch of anecdotal evidence built on assumption and imagination. Nothing I said about speciation was wrong. It is not me that can't consider they might be wrong.I've made it clear I believe God over what man says is true and you should too. But you give one a pass when it comes to evidence and not the other.

[crochet1949]

I'm going to get in here because Audie and I are talking about basically the same thing in PMing.

Observing nature we see what animals Do mate and produce off-spring. And man Does have dominion over the animals world just as Genesis says. And there Is obviously a difference between man and the animal world. There Is definite difference between various kinds of monkeys / chimps, etc and the human being. Almost identical in DNA makes for obvious visual difference in life.

Now there Is the world of fossils -- what Caused them -- where they are Found. And That is part of a great mystery. For a lot of people there Is No mystery. Between the ice glaciers and fossils there is supposedly ample proof to prove an Old, Old age of earth and people. No need to have a Genesis account of Anything. HOWEVER -- we Do have that collection of Books called the Bible / God's Word and It does give another account of how all of this happened. But -- isn't that pretty much what we have with science? A bunch of books written by various authors who make a lot of valid claims from having done a lot of studying over the years.

Scientists have peer review of their material -- how valid it is. Pastors / Bible colleges / seminaries have the same thing.

And there Are scientists who Do believe in the Bible and Are creationists --- and there are , as well, pastors, Bible colleges and seminaries who Don't believe Bible. So -- what does a person Do? He reads and studies on his own -- and comes to his own conclusions with the mind that God has given him. And when people Do come to varying conclusions -- we Can have respect for their opinions. No need to ridicule / make fun of.

And, No I'm Not wrong about the existence of God. Too much proof in God's favor.
The term 'arcane' has been used. Please define.

[Audie]

I'm going to get in here because Audie and I are talking about basically the same thing in PMing.

Observing nature we see what animals Do mate and produce off-spring. And man Does have dominion over the animals world just as Genesis says. And there Is obviously a difference between man and the animal world. There Is definite difference between various kinds of monkeys / chimps, etc and the human being. Almost identical in DNA makes for obvious visual difference in life.

Now there Is the world of fossils -- what Caused them -- where they are Found. And That is part of a great mystery. For a lot of people there Is No mystery. Between the ice glaciers and fossils there is supposedly ample proof to prove an Old, Old age of earth and people. No need to have a Genesis account of Anything. HOWEVER -- we Do have that collection of Books called the Bible / God's Word and It does give another account of how all of this happened. But -- isn't that pretty much what we have with science? A bunch of books written by various authors who make a lot of valid claims from having done a lot of studying over the years.

Scientists have peer review of their material -- how valid it is. Pastors / Bible colleges / seminaries have the same thing.

And there Are scientists who Do believe in the Bible and Are creationists --- and there are , as well, pastors, Bible colleges and seminaries who Don't believe Bible. So -- what does a person Do? He reads and studies on his own -- and comes to his own conclusions with the mind that God has given him. And when people Do come to varying conclusions -- we Can have respect for their opinions. No need to ridicule / make fun of.

And, No I'm Not wrong about the existence of God. Too much proof in God's favor.
The term 'arcane' has been used. Please define.

Google is your friendly dictionary.

If you are not wrong, and have proof, does that mean it is impossible that you are wrong aboutvthe existence of God? Infallible knowledge?

All of about ice age, fossils, evolution has nothing whatever to do with
the existence of God. It is past time to get over that. Nothing about science says to
not believe in God. Science does show, tho, thst some interpretations are wrong.

How valid is the science? Well, there is an awful lot of good data.

How valid is your chosen reading of Genesis? There is only your chosen
opinion on that.

Bible scholars like jac see that you are off the track.
The story written into the very earth says the same.

Seems like an imbalance not to your favour.

Or actually, it us to your favour if you lesrn from it.

[Audie]

The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.

Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.



The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.

Abe, you keep chanting your mantra about "no evidence" despite the fact that there is more evidence than you could read in a lifetime.

Of course there is no evidence, to you. What little you read, you dont understand. Your salamander thing you keep citing, your take-away isnt at all what the article is about. You have very little grasp of geology or biology, and you invent your own standards for what is evidence, which are impossible to meet.

For example:
When evidence goes against you, then you go into high gear, making things up.
Darting about for an escape like a mouse in a cobra cage.

Escape attempt number 1:
"The ice floated, stayed intact, settled back exactly in place" ;


Escape attempt numberv2
"The ice did not float, it is stuck down"

Escape attempt number 3
"The top half of the ice floated, did not break up or melt, settled back exactly in place".

You made up each of those. Your "evidence"? An ice cube frozen to a bowl!
Even you know how dumb that is.

Got any more escape attempts you want to try?

Double standard? Hardly. You've no standard at all.

Now, you speak of "God's word", "what God says is true".

I notice you ignore uncomfortable questions and just chant your same mantra.

Lets see if you can be honest and answer this time.

So tell me-
Is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of god?

I could be wrong, I dont claim to have arcane insight.

Is it possible that there was no world wide flood?

The evidence shows there was not. Only an assumed insight into the true meaning of
"God's word" says otherwise. No data, nothing but that assumption.
The numbers are against "God's word" as you choose to interpret it.

Is it possible that "God's word" is true, but like the atheists you say ard in darkness, you dont have a clue what "God"is actually saying?

Yes there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and I'm right,there is only a bunch of anecdotal evidence built on assumption and imagination. Nothing I said about speciation was wrong. It is not me that can't consider they might be wrong.I've made it clear I believe God over what man says is true and you should too. But you give one a pass when it comes to evidence and not the other.

Ok, you believe God over nan. Are you a man, not to be believed? Or are you God? His authorized agent? Are you gifted with infallible knowldege of what god said and what he meant by it?

Equating your opinion to God's word? Tsk.

I see you again ran away from simple questions. You will run away from these too.

If you are so right, and god backs you up, why are you so afraid to go back and actually
answer?

That last is rhetorical. . The answer is obvious.

[abelcainsbrother]

The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.

Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.



The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.

Abe, you keep chanting your mantra about "no evidence" despite the fact that there is more evidence than you could read in a lifetime.

Of course there is no evidence, to you. What little you read, you dont understand. Your salamander thing you keep citing, your take-away isnt at all what the article is about. You have very little grasp of geology or biology, and you invent your own standards for what is evidence, which are impossible to meet.

For example:
When evidence goes against you, then you go into high gear, making things up.
Darting about for an escape like a mouse in a cobra cage.

Escape attempt number 1:
"The ice floated, stayed intact, settled back exactly in place" ;


Escape attempt numberv2
"The ice did not float, it is stuck down"

Escape attempt number 3
"The top half of the ice floated, did not break up or melt, settled back exactly in place".

You made up each of those. Your "evidence"? An ice cube frozen to a bowl!
Even you know how dumb that is.

Got any more escape attempts you want to try?

Double standard? Hardly. You've no standard at all.

Now, you speak of "God's word", "what God says is true".

I notice you ignore uncomfortable questions and just chant your same mantra.

Lets see if you can be honest and answer this time.

So tell me-
Is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of god?

I could be wrong, I dont claim to have arcane insight.

Is it possible that there was no world wide flood?

The evidence shows there was not. Only an assumed insight into the true meaning of
"God's word" says otherwise. No data, nothing but that assumption.
The numbers are against "God's word" as you choose to interpret it.

Is it possible that "God's word" is true, but like the atheists you say ard in darkness, you dont have a clue what "God"is actually saying?

Yes there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and I'm right,there is only a bunch of anecdotal evidence built on assumption and imagination. Nothing I said about speciation was wrong. It is not me that can't consider they might be wrong.I've made it clear I believe God over what man says is true and you should too. But you give one a pass when it comes to evidence and not the other.

Ok, you believe God over nan. Are you a man, not to be believed? Or are you God? His authorized agent? Are you gifted with infallible knowldege of what god said and what he meant by it?

Equating your opinion to God's word? Tsk.

I see you again ran away from simple questions. You will run away from these too.

If you are so right, and god backs you up, why are you so afraid to go back and actually
answer?

That last is rhetorical. . The answer is obvious.

Wrong! This is a one-sided discussion. I have clearly already told you what I believe and think. It is you that does not consider that you might be wrong. You only expect me to do what you don't do. Plus,I have even given you solid reasons why life cannot evolve according to the evidence.There are built in limits to how much variation can be had amongst a population.It can only be horizontal,not verticle like evolution teaches. You also put words in my mouth I have never said or implied and everybody can see your dishonesty.

[abelcainsbrother]

I'm going to get in here because Audie and I are talking about basically the same thing in PMing.

Observing nature we see what animals Do mate and produce off-spring. And man Does have dominion over the animals world just as Genesis says. And there Is obviously a difference between man and the animal world. There Is definite difference between various kinds of monkeys / chimps, etc and the human being. Almost identical in DNA makes for obvious visual difference in life.

Now there Is the world of fossils -- what Caused them -- where they are Found. And That is part of a great mystery. For a lot of people there Is No mystery. Between the ice glaciers and fossils there is supposedly ample proof to prove an Old, Old age of earth and people. No need to have a Genesis account of Anything. HOWEVER -- we Do have that collection of Books called the Bible / God's Word and It does give another account of how all of this happened. But -- isn't that pretty much what we have with science? A bunch of books written by various authors who make a lot of valid claims from having done a lot of studying over the years.

Scientists have peer review of their material -- how valid it is. Pastors / Bible colleges / seminaries have the same thing.

And there Are scientists who Do believe in the Bible and Are creationists --- and there are , as well, pastors, Bible colleges and seminaries who Don't believe Bible. So -- what does a person Do? He reads and studies on his own -- and comes to his own conclusions with the mind that God has given him. And when people Do come to varying conclusions -- we Can have respect for their opinions. No need to ridicule / make fun of.

And, No I'm Not wrong about the existence of God. Too much proof in God's favor.
The term 'arcane' has been used. Please define.

That is good if ya'll are PMing. My point is if she can believe life evolves without evidence that demonstrates it can,then she can believe God's word without evidence.

[Audie]

The thing that I consistantly notice about Audie is how she can believe life evolves without one scientist ever demonstrating it,she never saw it happpen,cannot see it happen,yet cannot believe things in the bible she didn't see. She will ignore that not being able to breed amongst a population sometimes is normal and it never leads to life evolving.

Like amongst the population of dogs a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed, yet it is not a new species that has not branched off like evolutionists believe and this proves their whole tree of life cannot be true and is based on belief and imagination.Yet it is somehow speciation for evolutionists and scientists decide for you when speciation happens. Or like Lions that can breed with Tigers,but not Cheetahs and yet it is not above its species level or like evolutionists using salamanders for evidence for macro-evolution and claim when Salamanders produced more salamanders that cannot breed,it is somehow speciation this time though and they will evolve. You've just got to believe it,bro.



The thing is is it does not matter that a Great Dane and Chihauhauh cannot breed ,Tigers and Cheetahs cant breed and that one kind of a salamanders cannot breed with another kind of salamander. Kinds/Families produce after their kind just like the bible teaches us. Because they will still never be above the species level.She chooses to believe what man says is true without evidence but not what God says is true because she claims there is no evidence.

There is a double standard when it comes to evidence and yet knows man has been wrong many times throughout history. Whole societies believed things to be true that turned out to be wrong and it was not just Christians,but everybody else too. So you cannot just single out Christianity that blessed the world with modern science. It did not come from atheists,they remaimed in the dark.Yet God made salvation so easy but she will not do things God's way and so does not have the proof she needs. Overlook the lack of evidence for evolution,yet nit-pick God's word for lack of evidence.

Abe, you keep chanting your mantra about "no evidence" despite the fact that there is more evidence than you could read in a lifetime.

Of course there is no evidence, to you. What little you read, you dont understand. Your salamander thing you keep citing, your take-away isnt at all what the article is about. You have very little grasp of geology or biology, and you invent your own standards for what is evidence, which are impossible to meet.

For example:
When evidence goes against you, then you go into high gear, making things up.
Darting about for an escape like a mouse in a cobra cage.

Escape attempt number 1:
"The ice floated, stayed intact, settled back exactly in place" ;


Escape attempt numberv2
"The ice did not float, it is stuck down"

Escape attempt number 3
"The top half of the ice floated, did not break up or melt, settled back exactly in place".

You made up each of those. Your "evidence"? An ice cube frozen to a bowl!
Even you know how dumb that is.

Got any more escape attempts you want to try?

Double standard? Hardly. You've no standard at all.

Now, you speak of "God's word", "what God says is true".

I notice you ignore uncomfortable questions and just chant your same mantra.

Lets see if you can be honest and answer this time.

So tell me-
Is it possible that you are wrong about the existence of god?

I could be wrong, I dont claim to have arcane insight.

Is it possible that there was no world wide flood?

The evidence shows there was not. Only an assumed insight into the true meaning of
"God's word" says otherwise. No data, nothing but that assumption.
The numbers are against "God's word" as you choose to interpret it.

Is it possible that "God's word" is true, but like the atheists you say ard in darkness, you dont have a clue what "God"is actually saying?

Yes there is no evidence that demonstrates life evolves and I'm right,there is only a bunch of anecdotal evidence built on assumption and imagination. Nothing I said about speciation was wrong. It is not me that can't consider they might be wrong.I've made it clear I believe God over what man says is true and you should too. But you give one a pass when it comes to evidence and not the other.

Ok, you believe God over nan. Are you a man, not to be believed? Or are you God? His authorized agent? Are you gifted with infallible knowldege of what god said and what he meant by it?

Equating your opinion to God's word? Tsk.

I see you again ran away from simple questions. You will run away from these too.

If you are so right, and god backs you up, why are you so afraid to go back and actually
answer?

That last is rhetorical. . The answer is obvious.

Wrong! This is a one-sided discussion. I have clearly already told you what I believe and think. It is you that does not consider that you might be wrong. You only expect me to do what you don't do. Plus,I have even given you solid reasons why life cannot evolve according to the evidence.There are built in limits to how much variation can be had amongst a population.It can only be horizontal,not verticle like evolution teaches. You also put words in my mouth I have never said or implied and everybody can see your dishonesty.

Still dodging dodging dodging.

[crochet1949]

Well -- believing In God in the first place would help. Then a person would be more likely to appreciate God's Word BEING God's Word as authoritative.

Reading God's Word and being able to understand what He's saying is as Simple as simply Reading it. When you pick up a science book -- geology, etc., do you question every thing the author is stating? Or do you take him at his word.

When 'we' pick up a Bible to read it -- it is easily understood because it's in English -- We understand when we are reading History that it IS history -- same with the poetry books, etc. -- so it's really not a matter of anyone having special ability to read and understand. Our Bible is an infallible to Us as your science books are to You. And Your science books are extremely reliable to you.

[Audie]

Well -- believing In God in the first place would help. Then a person would be more likely to appreciate God's Word BEING God's Word as authoritative.

see "confirmation bias. Conclusion before evidence is what you are recommending.
You might not like it so well if you are the accused, dont youbthink?

Reading God's Word and being able to understand what He's saying is as Simple as simply Reading it. When you pick up a science book -- geology, etc., do you question every thing the author is stating? Or do you take him at his word.

You dont question your interpretation of "God's word? I've never denied God or said his word is not authoritative. How would I know? Ive been trying to point out that some readings are plainly wrong. Jesus is really a baa baa lamb; there really was a flood, those are both plainly wrong.

As for how I read? It is not hard to find errors in science texts. Course,
texts are not a primafy sourse, and I did not use them after about my jr. year.
i've corrected a professor, too. Life is not long enough to question everything,
but being alert and applying cricical thinking skills is a terrific help. On important things
(Including doctors diagnosis), look to other sources to get other opinions. (Hint:
No geologist thinks therevwas a flood)

When 'we' pick up a Bible to read it -- it is easily understood because it's in English -- We understand when we are reading History that it IS history -- same with the poetry books, etc. -- so it's really not a matter of anyone having special ability to read and understand. Our Bible is an infallible to Us as your science books are to You. And Your science books are extremely reliable to you

Ah now dont be go making up silly things about me. I dont do
"Infallible". But you say the bible is. So does that mean that it is imposdible
that there was no such flood? Gets tricky here; your reading is widely disputed by
scholars of the bible, and thoroughly disproved by
researchers in many fields. Might be undesirable to equate
infallible bible to your fallible interpretation. Dont you think so?

.